Posted on 02/25/2016 9:26:00 AM PST by Fhios
In a bit of unusual news, the Utah Senate voted 20-6 to ask Congress to repeal the 17th Amendment of the Constitution. The 17th Amendment allows for the direct election of senators. The bill's sponsor, Sen. Al Jackson (R-Highland) argued that the 17th Amendment was not what the founders of the country had intended and changed the meaning of the role of the senators.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! The “income tax” as we know it today was passed in 1862. The statute is called the “Internal Revenue Act of 1862”. What changed to bring forth the 16th Amendment was the Supreme Court case of Pollack v. Farmers Loan & Trust, 1895. What the court did was say that “to tax the fruit (gains/profits) was to tax the tree (stock in federal corporations) and thus said that the income tax was a direct tax and that the source (stock) could not cause the gains/profits to become taxable. What this did was created an unconstitutional loophole that enabled crony capitalists who were engaged in making profits from the use of & investments in federal government resources to skirt paying taxes otherwise owed to the federal government.
After the 16th was passed, there came the case of Brushaber, same scenario, trying to deny the gains/profits from investments in federally owned property were taxable. This time, the SCOTUS upheld the law. The SCOTUS rightly ruled that the 16th Amendment ‘income tax’ was indeed an excise tax limited to activities subject to the income tax. Later, in 1944, the SCOTUS again ruled:
“The Government is an abstraction, and its possession of property largely constructive. Actual possession and custody of Government property nearly always are always in someone who is not himself the Government, but acts in its behalf and for its purposes. He may be an officer, an agent, or a contractor. His personal advantages from the relationship by way of salary, profit, or beneficial personal use of the property may be taxed...”
And in 1992, John R. Lucky, Legislative Attorney with the Library of Congress, “Frequently Asked Questions Concerning The Federal Income Tax” (CRS Report for Congress 92-303A (1992)) stated:
“When a court refers to an income tax as being in the nature of an excise, it is merely stating that the tax is a fee for the privilege of receiving gain form property. The tax is based upon the amount of the gain, not the value of the property.”
Your earnings that your employer pays you for the services you perform for him, unless they are connected to the federal purse in some way, those earnings are not “wages” as stated in 26 U.S.C. 3402(e) Included and excluded wages. The code itself states that NOT all that is paid to an employee are “wages” subject to the ‘income tax”, only if the services performed for the private employer are connected to the federal purse via a contract that employer may have with the federal government do those earnings become “wages” subject to taxation.
And we know this personally as we used to haul meat to the west coast that would then be shipped to military bases overseas. Every penny of the revenue we collected for hauling those loads was 100% taxable revenue as the ultimate source of that revenue came form the federal purse. We have not hauled anything for over 10 years that is in any way connected to the federal purse, therefore, our revenue is no longer subject to the “income tax”.
IRS Manual 4.10.4-9: Total receipts deposited LESS nontaxable receipts deposited
We can either educate ourselves, or continue to be ignorant slaves of the beast our ignorance created. The choice is up to us, the American citizenry at large who are ultimately the final check upon ALL federal government activities, to make sure those activities are being applied according to the Constitution and the subsequent constitutional laws passed by Congress.
The 16th closed an unconstitutional loophole that the SCOTUS had created through an erroneous ruling in 1895.
It started with the re-instituting of the ‘withholding’ during WWII. It took Congress almost 3 years to get that legislation passed because basically, the withholding forms would be sent to every employer, private & public, which would then create a misunderstanding in the actual purpose of the w-4, w-2, w-9 & 1099 forms.
The congressional committee asked, ‘will the tax be withheld from those not subject to the tax’ to which the IRS said , “yes”. And so what came next was a form to replace & correct the erroneous w-2s & 1099s filed with the IRS. Where most get it wrong is not responding lawfully to the information forms filed against them with the IRS. If someone files a form in your name, you MUST respond by filing the proper forms rebutting that false information. Now is the IRS happy about your correcting erroneous information? No, however, when the response is done lawfully & respectfully, there is no retribution because the fact is, the IRS employees for the most part are as ignorant of the law as our CPA of 30+ years who we no longer require the services of, which in turn has added greatly to our bottom line.
The constitutional theory today is that if an Article V convention takes place — triggered by agreement between 2/3s of the states, Congress cannot interfere. It’s a straight up or straight down State vote of 3/4s of the States to pass an amendment without any vote needed from Congress.
I knew it, even though you were very vague. You are an idiot tax protester. Thing is, all TPs have the same, stupid stench about them and everything they say.
I’m not gonna waste my time on your BS theories, other than to note that every single federal court that you and your ilk have ever been in and propounded your stupid junk to has told you to go pound sand. Sometimes with up to 25K in sanctions for wasting the court’s time with frivolous garbage.
But, please feel free to continue to embarrass yourself, as I’m sure you will.
I didn't think you were so clueless as to be a Hendrickson sycophant. Until I read more of your TP burblings and baloney.
It had seemed that FR had gotten rid of most of the moronic TPs. Clearly, that's wrong -- you just posted a link to Hendrickson's totally useless, totally BS site.
A link to the site of a dope who has been convicted and sent to federal prison twice? Most recently for following his own garbage federal tax advice? The same junk that you regurgitate?
To the same clown whose wife also went to federal prison for criminal contempt for following her goofy husband's tax advice?
You should be ashamed and embarrassed by your stupidity.
You need to file amended tax returns for the last 10 years. You've admitted in public that what you've filed were fraudulent returns. Using your own words from above:
And for the record, we discovered the truth over 10 years ago, since that discovery, we educated ourselves and have applied the tax laws as they are written to every penny we take in. We file the proper forms as the law requires and in the past 10 years, we have not paid one penny in "income tax" and have not suffered any retribution for exercising our due diligence in applying the law as it is written to all earnings that come into our bank account.
and:
We have not hauled anything for over 10 years that is in any way connected to the federal purse, therefore, our revenue is no longer subject to the "income tax".
All of that is totally wrong.
I could go on but it's not necessary, you've already dug your hole plenty deep enough.
I've got news for you. Your Hendrickson tax "truth" is total BS.
The IRS may be slow, but they will eventually get around to you if you commit tax fraud, which is what you've been doing and recommending.
The IRS is well aware of Hendrickson's BS (his tax gibberish has been cited by many federal judges in opinions in Hendrickson's and related cases of Hendrickson's victims/marks, you know, people like you, except that you haven't been indicted yet) which means they are also probably already aware of you and what you've been doing for the last 10 years.
Those 10 years of fraudulent returns that you and your wife have filed?
Subject to a $5K frivolous filing penalty each, as in both of you. Oops. That would be 100K.
Those BS "corrected" forms (of 1099s and W-2s) you thought were so smart to file each year? Subject to a 5K frivolous filing penalty for each and every one of them.
Trying to jerk the IRS around for the last 10 years could cost you between 100 and 200K in frivolous filing penalties alone.
On top of the actual tax, penalties and interest that you owe. Real smart.
Here's some free advice. Don't admit to committing federal tax crimes in public and don't advocate that others do so.
You may very likely wind up wishing that you had listened to your long-time CPA, who you apparently brushed off, probably with some snide comment about him being "deceived" because you thought you were more enlightened and smarter than he, even though you know nothing about tax law or tax accounting.
I have no doubt that he told you not to go down this totally stupid and silly road and that you sneered at him.
You and anyone else with the slightest inclination to believe anything Hendrickson says should go here:
to be totally disabused of any such notion.
Being a TP is hazardous to your finances, family life and freedom. Unless, of course, you enjoy being broke in federal prison and having a felony criminal record when you get out.
Zero-care is the PERFECT example of how elected senators violated states’ rights. The states have sued like crazy to avoid this attack on healthcare.
Thanks. I’ve studied the actual effects of the system put in place. In short, it failed. The 17th was coming whether you liked it or not, because an informed majority knew it wasn’t working anymore.
BTW, this has been discussed ad infinitum on this board. It’s a peculiar fetish amongst those that have no clue how it would work in today’s political reality.
Art, I’m going to have to vigorously disagree with you on this. I wish I could find one of the past threads on this where we extensively hashed this out. If we returned to this pre-17th method, we would not be getting statesmen, we’d be getting political puppets of the establishment. They would be sent to loot as much as possible from the Feds to get to their states. Democrat states would perpetually elect as far-left moonbats as imaginable, Republican states would elect left-wing RINOs. There would be no Conservatives left in that body. Just bipartisan big gubmint looters.
‘I do not want anyone touching our Constitution as it is always possible a real Judge or two could be appointed.’
God bless you for caring so deeply about Freedom!
If you can’t trust 3/4 of the states, then you must think we are doomed anyway. Look at all the states wanting to end govt recognition of unholy unions? Better known as sodomous ‘marriage’. How many states sued FOR Obama Care?
People love their rights.
And when this election is over, either we are in a great position to amend the Constitution or we are doomed to be overrun by foreign dual-citizen voters and voter fraud.
This moment is a window of opportunity. People are KEENLY aware of our political crisis right now. And, God willing, our economy will quickly improve. When it does, public awareness will diminish. The window closes.
Let’s look back in history.
Greek democracy was born after defeating tyrants. In fact, the word ‘tyrant’ comes from pre-democracy Greece.
The Roman Republic spawned from the defeat of Etruscan kings. [Tyranny, once again.]
The Magna Carta resulted from tyranny.
Our Revolution resulted from tyranny.
The post New Deal amendments resulted from tyranny.
And whatever we do now will result from tyranny.
Good fruit can be born post-tyranny.
And I would love it if the people are ready to repeal the 17th amendment. Maybe, however, we should replace it with a tight term limit to appointed senators.
Information is easier to access now than back during the 1800s. If a state legislator sticks with some creep of a senator, then that legislator could quickly be discovered and dealt with. That works well if a senator’s term is shortened to once a year, serving for a maximum of six or so years.
‘Repealing the 16th would be another step in the right direction.’
Uh ... don’t forget that we should most definitely continue to abolish slavery.
But I get what you mean. There are elements of the 16th amendment which are being interpreted in a convoluted way [similar to the widening of the Commerce Clause]. Carry Okie crafted quite a scholarly work about that very problem.
Uups. Got my numbers mixed up. Sorry.
I respect your view and don’t feel ‘schlonged’ in any way by your opinion.
I’m trying to look ahead though. The problem was that our Founding Fathers failed to understand the downfall of the Roman Republic. The Roman Senator was an oligarch. Elected for life. And they thought that six years with perpetual reappointment potentiol would be sufficient oversight.
Senators still have no term limits and six year terms to boot. Makes them the equivalent of Roman oligarchs [aka Roman senators]. So what I suggest is quick term and term limited appointments.
State governments are changing rapidly. All politics is changing rapidly. And it would be easier for people to lambast their legislators over lousy appointments than it would be to figure out which politician to vote for and then faithfully support regardless. Voters are less emotionally invested in a legislative appointee.
I’ve also been contingency planning constitutional amendments based on the assumption that this will fail.
But, my fellow sick twisted freak, I do respect your patriotism. Both sides of this issue care deeply.
‘I’m trying to look ahead though. The problem was that our Founding Fathers failed to understand the downfall of the Roman Republic...’
Gosh do I sound like a tool!
Looking ahead?
Then I refer to founding fathers and the Roman Republic.
~~~~~~~
I need coffee. COFFEE!
What the Founders wanted was simple and straightforward enough. However, as with many plans, they don’t often go off as they’re supposed to.
As it was, Senators would be chosen ostensibly by the governing majority of a given state legislature. They would then be directed on how to vote on particular bills while in DC. If the Senator failed to vote as instructed, or if during the duration of their 6-year term the governing majority of the state legislature changed, the “gentleman’s agreement” was that they would step down and allow the Governor to either name a replacement or go straight to having an election by the legislature. Again, simple enough.
However, it started to break down early on in the 19th century. Senators would start to exercise independence, they would defy the governing majority of a given state, and realized that because of election laws set out in the Constitution, they were not legally bound to step aside. Hence, when someone was elected to a full term, come hell or high water, they’d stay until the end.
At the end of Reconstruction, for example, even after a given state was “redeemed” (returned to Democrat power), Republican Senators would not step aside until their terms expired, often going as long as 4 years in hostile opposition. One example was Mississippi’s Blanche Kelso Bruce, the first Black man elected to serve a full 6-year term. After MS was “redeemed”, the legislature demanded this “Negro” resign so to put a White Democrat in his seat. Worse, yet, conditions so rapidly deteriorated in MS, Bruce could not even return to the state for the latter part of his term. He largely remained in DC and continued to serve until his term expired.
By the end of the 19th century, the Senate had become such a thoroughgoing joke that the seats were simply being bought. The public knew it and they were growing tired of it. You also had a situation such as what occurred in Delaware where the seats went years without being able to elect a member because of legislative deadlock. By the 20th century, some states began holding direct elections because the public was fed up with the process, and would abide by their choice until the 17th was officially passed.
I do find it hysterical (quaint at first, funny later, just laughably hysterical after and at present) that “statesmen” in the vein of Calhoun, Webster, Benton and Clay would magically spring forth with repeal. Quite a few states would cease to have any chance of a Republican ever winning there again. Heavily gerrymandered Democrat states would fix the races and would send the most partisan shakedown artists imaginable. The “states rights” they would look out for is one: $$. Send every last dime they can appropriate to the states. Support big gubmint ? No problem ! Dem states j’adore big gubmint. GOP establishment guys do, too.
The disconnect between what anti-17thers believe vs. the reality of what would happen with repeal is unbelievably vast to the point of fantasy.
I think there are other far more important ways to tackle the problem of the size and scope of government, and it starts with the who ought to be ALLOWED to cast votes. Voting should NOT be a right, but a privilege. A privilege for those with skin in the game. You take government welfare payouts ? No vote. You work for the government (except law enforcement/military) including as a gov’t contractor ? No vote. You’re voting on looting your own government.
There was a reason why the Founders did not want DC casting a vote, and that was why. The expectation was government employees would live in DC and would hence be voting on their own livelihoods, and that was a common sense conclusion. Most DC-area residents now living in MD and NoVA should not have the right to vote. They keep voting for candidates who keep ballooning the debt and expanding the bureaucracy. That MUST end.
Those people and only those in the private, non-governmental sector, should have a say in the government. Taxpayers. If that offends the remainder, tough. Quit your government job and get a job in the private sector and your enfranchisement is returned. Offended you don’t get to vote with food stamps and a welfare check ? Tough. Get off the dole, get a private sector job, and your vote is returned.
This is far more important than pie in the sky fantasies about a mid-19th century Senate that really never existed.
Okay, now fortified by coffee.
I was foolishly harsh regarding our Founding Fathers. Lucid post coming up ....
Why Senate Term Limits Work Best w Repealing 17th Amendment
Voters are less emotionally invested in a legislative appointee.
It’s easier to chew out a legislator over a bad apppointment than it is to turn against the bad candidate you voted for.
That’s just human nature.
So the Senate, rather than being LESS accountable than the House becomes even more accountable.
But note: without short terms [such as once a year], and without term limits, repealing the 17th Amendment solves nothing.
Our Founding Fathers counted on preachers terrorizing their flock with hellfire sermans. The anti-Christians have completely undermined that ethical cornerstone.
Now their fear has been made manifest: our senate is almost the same as the one in Ancient Rome, lifelong oligarchs awash in corruption.
It does not matter whether they are elected or appointed if they can conceivably serve for the rest of their lives.
BTW, your post 135 is very informative.
You are correct that simply repealing the 17th amendment achieves nothing.
A system of oligarchy always results in tyranny, whether someone is elected or appointed.
Now with extra coffee I’ll have trouble sleeping tonight.
‘Thank you’ very much for forcing me to use my brain.
Just off the top of my head, I don’t want my state legs voting on my Senator. It’s bad enough I’m effectively disenfranchised and have no representation. I’m in a State House district that elects White moonbats. I’m in a VRA-mandated State Senate district which only elects racist Black moonbats, my vote as a White person doesn’t matter.
I’m in a Congressional district that hasn’t elected a Republican since Ulysses Grant won a second term in 1872 (and that only because two Democrats split the vote in the general, one running as an Indy). So U.S. Senator is the only office where I can conceivably have a say. Take that away, and I’ve got nothing. And I’m in a heavily GOP state !
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.